Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Jackalow

United States v. Jackalow

 * ... that Justice Robert Cooper Grier (pictured) referred to the procedure of instructing a jury to decide where a crime occurred, which the U.S. Supreme Court held to be constitutionally mandated in United States v. Jackalow (1862), as "judicial murder"?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Periodismo para todos

Created/expanded by Savidan (talk). Self nom at 05:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Length, Sourcing, Age, and hook look good. No problems here. Interesting court case. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  08:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Hook is 238 characters not counting "(pictured)", which is far too long for DYK; rules say it must be below 200. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * SHORTER HOOK:


 * ... that Justice Grier (pictured) referred to the procedure of instructing a jury to decide where a crime occurred, which the U.S. Supreme Court required in United States v. Jackalow (1862), as "judicial murder"?
 * The new hook is short enough and certainly dramatic, but is that really what Grier is saying? From context, which seems to be the possibility of a retrial in a case where that particular decision would mean the difference between a state or high seas location (with the latter involving piracy and therefore the death penalty), it's a stretch: he's saying he's unwilling to have "twelve men guessing at it" if the court itself couldn't decide. Is it the procedure itself (regardless of where or how) or the procedure in this unusual case? Perhaps a new alternate hook would be best. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ALT1. In response to BlueMoonset's comments above. The "procedure" that Grier is responding to is giving the decision to the jury rather than the judge. I have reworded to avoid any ambiguity. Savidan 16:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ALT1 ... that Justice Grier (pictured) referred to the practice of having a jury decide where a crime occurred, which the U.S. Supreme Court required in United States v. Jackalow (1862), as "judicial murder"?
 * Yet another ALT2 that goes in a different direction. Savidan 16:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ALT2 ... that, in United States v. Jackalow (1862), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a jury should decide whether the Long Island Sound (pictured) was on the "high seas"?


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png I think this needs a pair of eyes other than mine. My problem is with the assertion of the general principal (i.e., "the practice of having a jury decide where a crime occurred") as opposed the particulars of this case, where the evidence was sketchy, the decision had such great ramifications (i.e., life or death), and the court itself didn't decide where. But this may just be my problem, so I'd like to have someone else take a look. I have corrected the spelling of "occurred" in the hooks, and struck the original overlong one and its shorter replacement. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, but, regardless, the points you have raised have nothing to do with ALT2 hook. Do you have any issues with that one? If you are OK with that one, I am inclined not to quibble about the first two. Savidan 00:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to let the new reviewer take on the ALT2 hook, and any earlier ones, fresh. As you note, the general problem I was having was with ALT1 and its predecessors. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to side with BlueMoonset (No) for ALT1. Grier was referring specifically to the special, unique circumstances surrounding this case. The wording also makes it seem like the Supreme Court was forcing him to implement this method instead of it being their ruling down the line after the jury's verdict was set aside by the lower court. ALT2 could work except it is also worded like the Supreme Court was compelling the specific jury in this case to decide one way or another (High Seas! Yay or Nay?) and not a general ruling about jurisdiction regarding all future cases. No paraphrasing concerns I can see. Froggerlaura  ribbit 04:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I won't dispute you as to ALT1. As to ALT2, you have understood the hook (mostly) correctly but misunderstood the holding. The Court said that, in the retrial, the jury should be instructed to determine the boundary of New York, and then to determine whether the murder occured within New York or on the high seas. This determination would have no force in future cases involving different parties (as with all jury verdicts). Just as when a judge instructs a jury to decide whether an instrument is a deadly weapon, that is not a precedent. In the next case, with a different murder in the same place, a different jury could decide differently. Savidan 05:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "ALT2 could work except it is also worded like the Supreme Court was compelling the specific jury in this case to decide one way or another (High Seas! Yay or Nay?) and not a general ruling about jurisdiction regarding all future cases." This is a frustrating criticism because that's exactly what the Court was doing. It's like saying "ALT2 could work except it is worded [to explain what the Court actually did] instead of [what it didn't do]." 20:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ALT3 ... that confusion about whether the Long Island Sound (pictured) was considered the "high seas" was central to the 1862 case United States v. Jackalow?
 * ALT3 seems to be based on the same misunderstanding as Froggerlaura's objection to ALT2. It was not confusion about what the sound was (in the Platonic sense), but the question of who should decide. Savidan 05:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Given Savidan's explanation I will approve ALT2. Length, date and paraphrasing are okay. Image has acceptable license. Balanced and NPOV. Overall very nice, well referenced article. Froggerlaura  ribbit 21:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)